History of Cannabis Regulations & Scheduling-A Timeline
Pre-Controlled Substance Act
1851: Cannabis was first introduced in the 3rd Edition of the U.S. Pharmacopoeia.
1910: Flexner Report of 1910 by Abraham Flexner, commissioned by the American Medical Association and the Carnegie Foundation, suggested that only trained physicians should be allowed to prescribe medicines and encouraged the disuse of medicinal plants in medical practices.
1916: 40% of official medicinal preparations in United States Pharmacopeia were crude plant extracts (299 preparations)
1930: Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was established in the Department of the Treasury. Harry J. Anslinger was appointed its first commissioner by Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, his father-in-law.
1930: Harry J. Anslinger launches campaign against cannabis.
“Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.”
“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice.”
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”
“The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
1936: Henry J. Anslinger fails to get an International treaty on Marijuana control
1937: American Medical Association testifies against Marijuana Tax Act Woodward C. 1937. AMA testimony to Congress. Dr. William C Woodward noted that "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug" and warned that a prohibition "loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for cannabis."
1937: Marijuana Tax Act becomes law
1938: U.S. Congress passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.- This law legally mandated quality and identity standards for foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices, prohibited false therapeutic claims, and enabled government inspection of manufacturing facilities. Authorized regulations governing the labeling of food “for special dietary uses” requiring the labeling of both fortified food and dietary supplements
1938: The last school specializing in botanical medicine, what is now considered complementary or alternative medicine, had closed, leaving only A.M.A.-approved schools in operation
1942: Cannabis removed 12th Edition U.S. Pharmacopoeia along with hundreds of other botanical medicines and compounds, resulting in plant extracts only making up 9% of official medicinal preparations in United States Pharmacopeia (American ginseng root reentered the USP published in 2002, St. John's wort, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto in 2004, and Black cohosh in 2008)
1961: UN Single Drug Treaty
1967: Henry J Anslinger testifies to Senate Comm. On Foreign Relations, Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, S. Exec. Rep. No. 11, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 20 (1967) (statement of H.J. Anslinger).
Another important reason for becoming a party to the 1961 convention is the marihuana problem .... Several groups in the United States are loudly agitating to liberalize controls and, in fact, to legalize its use .... If the United States becomes a party to the 1961 convention, we will be able to use our treaty obligations to resist legalized use of marihuana. This discussion is going on all over the country, in many universities, and in fringe groups, and it is rather disturbing.
1967: US signed on to the 1961 UN Single Drug Treaty, compelling the Creation of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA)
1969: United States v. Leary Supreme Court declares 1937 Marijuana Tax Act unconstitutional
The Controlled Substance Act
1970: Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, AKA the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), was passed by Congress, which placed Cannabis in Schedule I and created process and funding for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, AKA the Shafer Commission.
1971: Nixon appoints Republican former Pennsylvania governor Raymond P. Shafer and makes his intentions known:
“I want a goddamn strong statement about marijuana. Can I get that out of this sonofa-bitching, uh, domestic council? I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.”
“Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists, you know, there’s so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By God, we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss. I want to find a way of putting more on that.”
“I think there’s a need to come out with a report that is totally oblivious to some obvious differences between marijuana and other drugs, other dangerous drugs… And also, that you don’t go into the matter of penalties and that sort of thing, as to whether there should be uniformity in penalties, whether in courts, I’d much rather have uniformity than diversity… You’re enough of a pro to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels and what we’re planning to do would make your commission just look bad as hell… Keep your commission in line.” – To Shafer
From Oval Office tapes released in 2002 https://beyondthc.com/the-shafer-commission-report-1972
1971: Nixon Says He Will Not Legalize Marijuana Despite Shafer Commission
In a televised news conference on May 1, 1971, responding to a question about the White House Conference on Youth, which had voted to legalize marijuana, President Nixon said:
"As you know, there is a Commission that is supposed to make recommendations to me about this subject; in this instance, however, I have such strong views that I will express them. I am against legalizing marijuana. Even if the Commission does recommend that it be legalized, I will not follow that recommendation... I can see no social or moral justification whatever for legalizing marijuana. I think it would be exactly the wrong step. It would simply encourage more and more of our young people to start down the long, dismal road that leads to hard drugs and eventually self-destruction."
"The President's News Conference," The American Presidency Project website, May 1, 1971
1972: Shafer Commission released its first report: Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. In its first report (published in 1972), the Shafer Commission discussed the perception of marijuana as a major social problem and how it came to be viewed as such. It made a number of recommendations, including the development of a “social control policy seeking to discourage marihuana use while concentrating primarily on the prevention of heavy and very heavy use.” In this first report, the commission also called the application of criminal law in cases of personal use of marijuana “constitutionally suspect” and declared that “total prohibition is functionally inappropriate.”
1972: 1st Rescheduling Petition filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in 1972.
1975: DC resident Robert Randall was arrested for cultivating cannabis in his home. Citing clinical evidence, Mr. Randall successfully used the Common Law Doctrine of Necessity to fight the charges.
1978: FDA established the Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program to supply individuals who suffered from severe or chronic illness with a monthly supply of federally grown cannabis, up to nine pounds annually after Mr. Randall petitioned the federal government to provide him with access to medical cannabis in accordance with his medical necessity and shortly thereafter became the first American to receive a government-supplied source of cannabis.
1988: DEA's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled in 1988 that "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known... It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance.”
1989: DEA rejected the opinion and published their denial in the Federal Register; Creating the five-part test to determine whether a drug has a “currently accepted medical use.”
1991: Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics (ACT) petitioned the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to challenge the DEA’s petition denial
1992: DEA issued a final order in 1992 underscoring the agency's opinion that cannabis has no accepted medical use.
1992: President George H. W. Bush closed the program to new applicants, citing concerns that the program undermined the “war on drugs.”
1994: the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131). The petition was officially dead. established case law (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) upheld the Administrator of DEA's application of the five-part test to determine whether a drug has a “currently accepted medical use.” "Each of the doctors testifying on behalf of NORML claimed that his opinion was based on scientific studies, yet with one exception, none could identify, under oath, the scientific studies they relied on," DEA Administrator Thomas A. Constantine remarked in 1995.[44]
1995: 2nd Petition to Reschedule filed by Jon Getman- focus on whether abuse potential is significant enough to justify its current Schedule I status
1996: States begin passing laws outside the CSA for Medical Cannabis
2000: Conant v. McCaffrey. In the wake of state laws authorizing the use of cannabis in accordance with a recommendation from a physician, federal officials threatened to revoke the prescribing privileges of any physician who provided a recommendation to their patients for medical use. In response, a group of doctors led by AIDS specialist Dr. Marcus Conant filed suit in federal court, contending that such a policy violates guarantees under the First Amendment to freedom of speech. The government was enjoined by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco from penalizing physicians who recommend the medical use of cannabis. The ruling states that physicians have a First Amendment right to make recommendations but may not aid or abet patients in actually obtaining cannabis (Upheld 2002 Conant v. Walters)
2001: DEA Denies 2nd Petition
2001: Getman files an appeal with the DC circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals
2001: U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (OCBC), a person in federal court may not argue that the distribution of cannabis to those with a recommendation is a medical necessity. As a result, a federal district court in California issued a permanent injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, prohibiting it from distributing medical cannabis to authorized persons. While the Court was adamant that federal law still criminalizes the use and distribution of medical cannabis, the opinion left open several questions, such as constitutional limitations on federal authority.
2002: DC circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals denies appeal based on lack of standing
2002: 3rd Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (2002-2011) filed by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC). The CRC was an association of public interest groups, individuals who use medical cannabis, and advocates who support removing cannabis from Schedule I.
2004: ASA Files Data Quality Act Petition with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to correct misinformation published in the Federal Register about the accepted medical value of cannabis. ASA's petition asserts that the information HHS provided in the Federal Register needed to be more accurate and consider all the scientific evidence available.
2005: HHS denied the ASA’s DQA petition, citing concerns that accepting the petition would set the preconditions for rescheduling cannabis. The agency was already engaged in a scientific literature review in response to the 2002 rescheduling petition.
2005: Angel Raich v Ashcroft, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law enforcement officials may prosecute individuals who use medical cannabis, even if they cultivated their own cannabis and even if they reside in a state where such activity is protected under state law. The decision does not invalidate the laws of California or any other state that authorizes the use of cannabis in accordance with a physician's recommendation, nor does it suggest that federal officials are required to prosecute those authorized by state law to use or obtain medical cannabis. Prosecution decisions are still left to the discretion of U.S. Attorneys. The Court indicated that Congress and the Food and Drug Administration should work to resolve this issue.
2007: McClary-Raich v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the remaining issues raised in Raich v. Ashcroft: (1) she could not obtain a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) based on common law medical necessity, although she appeared to satisfy the factual predicate for such a claim; (2) application of the CSA to medical cannabis cultivators and users did not violate substantive due process guarantees; and (3) the Tenth Amendment does not bar enforcement of the CSA.
2007: Garden Grove v. Superior Court Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District required trial courts to order the return of medical marijuana that was improperly seized by the police. The court stated that medical marijuana patients are not criminals and, like other aggrieved citizens, are entitled to the return of their lawfully possessed property. Furthermore, the court reminded the police that enforcing federal drug laws is not their job.
2008: San Diego v. NORML, et al., the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that federal law does not preempt the state medical marijuana card program, nor does it constitute an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 215
2009: Fourth Rescheduling Petition filed by Rev. Bryan A. Krumm "because marijuana does not have the abuse potential for placement in Schedule I of the CSA, and because marijuana now has accepted medical use in 13 states, and because the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision, the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C), no longer applies to marijuana and federal law must be amended to reflect these changes."
2011: The DEA denied the 3rd Petition for Rescheduling
2011: Fifth Rescheduling Petition filed by Governors Lincoln D. Chafee (RI) and Christine O. Gregoire (WA) Administration asking the agency to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule 2 drug, which will allow its use for treatment – prescribed by doctors and filled by pharmacists.
2012: ASA appeals 3rd petition's denial Americans for Safe Access v. DEA
2012: ASA meets standing requirements for the court in Americans for Safe Access v. DEA
2013: Court stands by DEA Scheduling decision in 3rd petition's denial
2014: The Medical Cannabis Amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, first passed in 2014, was meant to be a triage measure to stop raids and prosecutions while Congress dealt with federal medical cannabis policies.
2016: DEA issues Denial of Rescheduling referring to both 4 & 5 Rescheduling Petition: “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana,”
2016: ASA files Information Quality Act Petition with DOJ & DEA: Request for Correction of Information Disseminated by DEA Regarding Marijuana (Cannabis); ASA found 25 violations under the IQA where the DEA website contained inaccurate which was refuted by the DEA itself in the “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana,”
2017: DEA Removes “Gateway Theory “ References and Psychosis reference
2018 :The Hemp Authorization of the 2018 Farm Bill removed cannabis with <.03% THC from the CSA and tasked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with regulating these products.
2018: FDA Approves Epidiolex
2020: United Nations reclassifies cannabis International recognizing its medical benefits
2022: President Biden signs the 2022 Research Act into law
2022: President Biden requested Health and Human Services (HHS) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to revisit the scheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA)
2022: CRS Issues Guidance on Scheduling Options for Congress
2023: FDA announces that they can’t regulate CBD
Note: 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)(B). 1998 FDA determined that Cholestin is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement under § 321(ff)(3) because it includes an article, lovastatin, which was approved as a new drug under 21 U.S.C. § 355 and because lovastatin was not "marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food" before FDA approved lovastatin as a new drug in 1987) (2001 Pharmanex, Inc. v. Shalala)
2023: DEA, in letters, expresses THC-O and THC delta-8 are not protected under the Hemp Bill; courts continue to limit States from prohibiting/regulating these protects
2024: On May 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), through the DEA, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to transfer marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 Fed. Reg. 44597, 44597 (2024).
2024: August 29, 2024 (General Notice of Hearing or GNoH), the DEA Administrator determined that in-person hearing proceedings are appropriate and fixed a December 2, 2024, commencement date at the DEA Hearing Facility. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 Fed. Reg. 70148, 70148-49 (2024)
Share this page
